Pre-publication summary of an interesting paper that is wending its way through the peer-review process.Title: Age-stratified infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in the non-elderly informed from pre-vaccination national seroprevalence studies
|Image from ZeroHedge. Note that rate listed for 40-49 Year-olds is 1/100th of the 3% fatality rate originally bandied about for COVID|
"(Original fatality) estimates were created under the assumption that COVID cases were overwhelmingly detectable; that cases were captured by testing and thus tracking deaths could be achieved with a “case fatality rate,” instead of “infection fatality rate.”
Lead author: John P.A. Ioannidis
Professor of Medicine (Stanford Prevention Research), of Epidemiology and Population Health and by courtesy, of Statistics and of Biomedical Data Science
Medicine - Stanford Prevention Research Center
Web page: http://web.stanford.edu/people/jioannid
Key points from this paper are that:
- COVID spread much more rapidly than we knew. This was based on antibody presence in blood collected before vaccines were available.
- Most people did not know they had COVID, either because the symptoms were so mild or because they suspected but chose to not get tested because a positive test would throw them and their family out of work.
- The fatality rate based on forensic-quality lab work about who had COVID rather than who SAID they had COVID revealed that the fatality rate was much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much lower (yes, 10 "muches") lower than what the fear-mongers and power-grabbers insisted it was.
- All infectious diseases must be respected if you have serious health issues or are elderly.
As a final note, Stanford University is considered a pretty fair academic school by some. The lead author does not work for the Eastern Puerto Rico Academy of Brake Repair and Toof-Pullin'. In the world of medicine, the reputation of your University counts for much.
Unfortunately, this study is based on inaccurate data.ReplyDelete
Because the Democrats wanted to use the China Wuhan Virus to steal a Presidential election, they made sure that all of the Wuhan sickness/deaths were blurred and muddied forever.
"Testing Positive" was the most meaningless metric since "carbon this or carbon that".
Testing was full of fraud and inaccuracies.
Death reporting was completely suspicious by design.
(Check out the Cook County ME's stats for Wuhan death's https://datacatalog.cookcountyil.gov/Public-Safety/Medical-Examiner-Case-Archive-COVID-19-Related-Dea/3trz-enys)
We will NEVER know what the real rates of infection or death are.
Just by using the "official" data as the Stanford team did, it does confirm that almost only the elderly were at risk.
Agreed. Not only that but the constantly changing PCR cycles meant data sets across timeframes can not be compared (apples vs oranges).Delete
Heres the worrisome thing, people all scratch their head trying to make sense of all that went on, with the paradigm that these people do not mean them harm. "Well how could that be? It doesn't make sense that they would do that?"
Correct. It does not make sense.
Now shift your paradigm to one where this harm is intentional, and they actually quite literally are trying to kill off 90% of the western population.
Not scratching your head anymore, are you?
It’s just a bad flu. We will never have good data again on any scientific issue that can be politicized.ReplyDelete
Indeed. And, perhaps just as bad, any credibility that "Public Health" has ever had, is now squandered. So, should there be good science regarding, say, Ebola, or monkeypox, or, really, any other darned thing (edited in transit from thought to keyboard), well, who would believe it? Hell, I'm a clinician, and I am presently supremely skeptical. No name, please, even a pseudonym.Delete
Google paid $55 an hour on the internet. My close relative has been without labor for nine months and the earlier month her compensation check was $12k by working at home for 8 hours a day. Copy and open this website for more details.. Www.Profit97.ComReplyDelete